WilliamF wrote:
I’ve never heard of anyone doing this.
When I bought into our Arrow (actually turning a group of 4 into a group of 2 by the end of the process), I did a pre-buy. And why wouldn’t I? How is buying 100% of a plane different from buying 50% or 25% in that regard – apart from the fact that in the syndicate scenario, the chances that the “sellers” are trying to fool you into buying something with major (known) hidden issues are lower because they have to live with you being a co-owner afterwards. But a pre-buy might just as well reveal things neglected by or unknown to the current group.
In my particular scenario, it was also a bit discerning that 3 of the previous 4 owners were leaving the group in the process of me joining. There were personal reasons for that, but at the time, the thought crossed my mind that there could have been a hidden reason for that. We are still on good terms with the previous co-owners now 3 years later and they occasionally still fly (and pay by the hour).
We are now in the process of adding a new group member and he, too, did a pre-buy at another maintenance facility and I obviously didn’t object because it’s what I did and would always do as well.
First I would ask about the engine fund
That depends on hours SMO? but yes there should be lot of collective money around to bolt a new engine and as well as money to cover large insurance (or raise premium to cover high hull & lower excess)
On insurance, my old UK syndicate had 130k aircraft (now likely near 180k) insured for 70k with 5k excess, when I joined that was raised to 130k hull and 1k excess which raised premium but worked
I gather for sole owner, one can chose to under-insure and put all eggs in one basket but on a syndicate, over-insuring is probably a better idea
It’s two out of many things with discussions in syndicates but straightforward in sole ownership, you can add the place where to base an aircraft?
Patrick wrote:
How is buying 100% of a plane different from buying 50% or 25% in that regard
It’s different because the remaining 75%, 50% or whatever is still interested in flying the plane and keeping it operational. Selling it 100%, and the seller is obviously not interested in maintaining or flying the plane, but more likely interested to get the price up. I think, as you say, the remaining percentage would also benefit by taking a closer look at the plane. It means the plane is a known factor when you enter, and this will be beneficial for the group as a whole (less to argue about in the future 
)
An important factor is the plane’s characteristics. A new member was straight off a Pa38 NPPL. He did his tailwheel convertion on grass.The Jodel DR1050 on tarmac destroyed his confidence. His share sold quickly when he gave up – to a 2,000+ hour examiner.
PS Someone quoted advice that “all the members should be nice people”. Much safer if the majority are argumentitive. And the number >3.
Patrick wrote:
But a pre-buy might just as well reveal things neglected by or unknown to the current group
Did you found any of that during the pre-buy? AFAIK, doing an annual with a new mechanic does come slightly heavy
Having been the person primarily responsible for selling two shares in our aircraft (soon to be a third if anyone is looking for a TB10 at EGBP) no one has yet wanted to do anything along the lines of a “pre-buy”.
We have a history of what has been found/done at annual inspections, preventative work we have initiated ourselves, along with AD’s/SB’s completed. Both have had conversations with the maintenance organisation too.
Our finances are solid and we operate as an LTD so everything is transparent and digestible from that side as we can provide accounts.
Our group is 7 with any shares changing hands at the moment being around £12k
When I bought into my two shares I was spending (relatively) small amounts of money that I could afford to lose, so it didn’t cross my mind to spend more money on paying for an inspection of the aircraft. In any case, what would it realistically add? In both cases I looked the aeroplane over closely myself – being quite mechanically-minded – and would not have bought them if I saw anything which gave me cause for concern.
I was also reassured by the fact that they flew regularly and according to the logbooks had done so for some time. This was the best indicator that the groups did not have major maintenance / downtime issues, whether aircraft-related or member-related.
If you get problems around what to fix and what not to fix then either the rules haven’t been drafted clearly enough (or at all) or they are not being stuck to. If the latter, I would be pointing out to the rest of the group that there’s little point in having a set of rules about this stuff if they’re going to be ignored.
The PA-17 presents no problems really, being on an LAA permit and not having much (anything) in the way of avionics that can require fixing. We do all the maintenance ourselves (just changing oil and looking things over really, there is very little to ‘service’) and then once a year we turn up to keep the inspector supplied with tea and biscuits while he does the annual.
The TB10 is in a CAMO, fortunately one of the good ones. 50hr checks (oil change plus quick look over – with an unfortunate basis in regulation – for the benefit of @Silvaire) are done in a couple of hours while one of us waits, annuals are done in about a week or 10 days – which by UK standards is very good. An advantage of my position in this particular group is that another member does the maintenance ferrying! Someone else does the insurance paperwork, the parking contract, the fuel account, etc. It does make for a flying life remarkably free of admin.
Availability of both aircraft is excellent and member-related issues have always been nil. Perhaps I have been lucky. But as with many things with aircraft (and life) it’s about trusting your instincts, sussing people out and building relationships for mutual benefit. Just as I looked the aircraft over closely I looked the people over too. Buying the shares involved meeting a few potential co-owners, and if the attitudes of any of them had set alarms bells off then I wouldn’t have bought in.
Unless one has no real mechanical aptitude I am generally sceptical of the value of any pre-buy over a self-performed inspection – but in the end my decision would depend on how much money I was going to spend on the aircraft. I tend to take a real-world view: do you actually have any comeback on the guy doing the pre-buy if he misses something major? Probably not. Are they going to learn that much that you can’t learn yourself without pulling it to pieces? Probably not. Is the owner going to let them pull it to pieces? Probably not.
